The UK Supreme Court handed down its decision in BTI v Sequana on 5 October 2022, unanimously dismissing the appeal from the 2019 Court of Appeal decision and confirming how directors duties ought to be applied when a company is in the zone of insolvency. Although decisions of the UK Supreme Court are not binding upon the jurisdictions in which Ogier practises law, it will nevertheless be highly persuasive and influence the approach taken in the offshore jurisdictions that Ogier advises upon.
Legal claims can only be brought within the applicable limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act (1996 Revision). A defendant to any claim that is time-barred has a complete defence. Prior to the recent decision ofRitchie Capital Management LLC et al (Ritchie) v Lancelot Investors Fund Ltd (Lancelot) and General Electric Company (GE), it had been generally understood that the Cayman approach to claims against companies in liquidation would follow the English position on the issue of limitation.
Die weltweite Ausbreitung des Coronavirus sorgt für heftige Turbulenzen im Wirtschaftsleben. Gerät eine GmbH in finanzielle Schieflage, steht besonders die Geschäftsführung unter Druck. Sie kämpft um das wirtschaftliche Überleben der Gesellschaft. Gleichzeitig kommen verschiedene Szenarien für die Haftung des Geschäftsführers in Betracht, wenn dieser keine Krisenprävention durchgeführt hat oder in der Krise nicht die erforderliche Sorgfalt anwendet.
Haftung wegen unzureichender Krisenprävention
The coronavirus pandemic is sending shock waves through the business world. If a GmbH (German limited liability company) finds itself in financial distress, the management in particular will be under pressure and must fight for the survival of the business. At the same time, there are various scenarios in which managing directors could be held liable for not implementing crisis prevention measures or exercising the necessary diligence during the crisis.
Liability for inadequate crisis prevention
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).
The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.
Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.